Comparing the measurement properties of the ICECAP‑A and ICECAP‑O instruments in ages 50–70: a cross‑sectional study on a representative sample of the Hungarian general population

Objective The ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O were validated as capability wellbeing measures of adults aged 18+and 65+years, respectively. We aimed to compare their measurement properties in age group 50–70. Methods Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey among a sample representative for the adult Hungarian population. Respondents aged between 50 and 70 flled in both the ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O questionnaires. We assessed and compared feasibility, agreement, discriminatory power, convergent and content validity of the two instruments and explored the determinants of the diferences between the two measures. Results 707 respondents (99.4%) provided full answers to both questionnaires (46.3% women, average age 60.1 years). The instruments showed similar construct and convergent validity and discriminatory power. Pearson-correlations between instrument items were strong (r>0.5). ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O scores could be calculated from each other with a good confdence (R2=0.69 and 0.71). ICECAP-O scores (mean 0.87, SD =0.12) were systematically higher than ICECAP-A scores (0.85, SD=0.15) in most subgroups. The diference increased with the deterioration of capability and health, and with age. Regression results showed that employment and health status had larger marginal efect on the ICECAP-A than on the ICECAP-O scores, and these efects were larger than the efect of age on both measures. Conclusion Validity of both instruments was confrmed in the age groups 50–70. Given that employment and health status are important determinants of the diferences between the two instruments besides age, the possibility of linking the choice between ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O to these factors should be investigated by further research.